(j,m 



C\%'\) 





:| 620 
py 1 



REPORT 



OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO 
CONSIDER POSSIBLE CHANGES IN THE 
CHARTER OF BROWN UNIVERSITY 



PRESENTED TO THE CORPORATION 

AT ITS ANNUAL MEETING 

JUNE 17, 1909 




PROVIDENCE. RHODE ISLAND 

PUBUSHED BY THE UNIVERSITY 

1909 



To the Trustees and Fellows of Brown University : 

Your committee appointed to consider the subject of changes in 
the university charter, and to report to the corporation their conclusions 
and advice, beg leave to make this preliminary report. Your com- 
mittee organized immediately after its appointment and proceeded at 
once to consider the questions submitted. The committee understand 
that the changes in the charter suggested and prominendy before the 
alumni in recent years are changes in those provisions of the charter 
which impose denominational requirements in the election of trustees, 
fellows, president, professors and tutors, and restrictions in public 
instruction in matters of sectarian opinion. They have therefore 
limited their consideration of the subject to changes of this nature. 
In this connection they have studied the origin, history and purposes 
of the charter. They have endeavored to determine the effect of the 
proposed change on the welfare of the university. They have con- 
sidered the source of its benefactions, the sectarian affiliations of its 
students and the extent of denominational influences in directing youth 
to the university. They have corresponded with other universities 
and colleges for the purpose of learning their experience in charter 
amendment. The archives and records during the entire history of 
the university, all subscription lists, correspondence relating to dona- 
tions and instruments of conveyances have been examined for the 
purpose of ascertaining what conditions, if any, have been attached 
to gifts, and what property rights, if any, may be forfeited by the 
proposed amendment. They have also examined the legal questions 
involved and carefully considered the moral and legal obligations 
assumed in the acceptance of gifts. 

As a result of these investigations and after patient consideration 
of the questions involved, your committee believe that the purposes 
of the founders in the light of present conditions would be best fulfilled 
by the removal of specific denominational requirements from the char- 
ter, and that harmonious action to this end, with due consideration of 



all interests affected, would greatly promote the welfare of the 
university. 

Your committee came to this inquiry with open minds 2ind with- 
out conscious bias or prejudice. They have arrived at this result 
only after long 2md thorough investigation and discussion. It is 
proper that they state the reasons which have influenced them to favor 
a cheoige in this ancient and time-honored instrument. 

The chcinge is desirable: 

I. Not because the university is now sectarian in administration 
or atmosphere. On the contrary, Brown University is as free to-day 
from sectarianism as any college in America. No trace of sectarian 
influence is ever seen in the assembly of the trustees and fellows, in 
the meetings of the faculty, or in the instruction of the class room. 

2. Not because of a purpose to meike the university less distincdy 
religious or less positively Christian. On the contrary, we earnestly 
desire Christian ideals to penetrate more and more deeply the entire 
life and work of the institution. 

3. Not only or chiefly because we desire to secure the benefits 
of the Camegie Foundation for our faculty. Earnest discussion as 
to the advisability of changing the charter has been carried on since 
the days of Frzuicis Wayland, and the idea is in no sense novel. We 
frankly acknowledge that the Camegie Foundation has brought the 
issue of charter revision again to the front, and that we do desire, 
not for the corporation, but for our faculty, the benefits of that 
foundation. Nevertheless, the reasons for change existed fifty years 
ago and would remain if the Camegie Foundation should vanish. 

But it is desirable because : 

1 . A change in the letter of the charter is necessary if we would 
preserve its spirit and intention. A document which was extra- 
ordinarily liberal for 1 764 is no longer so in 1 909. It is no longer 
consistent with the spirit of the founders or with its own declared 
purpose. Intended to secure in the goveming body a comprehensive 



representation of the great branches of the Christian church, it excludes 
all churches save those four which were prominent in New England 
in 1764. Intended to produce and nourish a "liberal and catholic 
institution," it now, if interpreted literally, surrounds the corporation 
and faculty with restrictions which are antiquated and out of harmony 
with the spirit of the present age and the desire of the founders. No 
man supposes that if the founders were now establishing a college 
they would advocate all the restrictive clauses now found in the 
charter. In the endeavor to preserve in the administration of the 
university the liberal spirit of the founders, we have strained the letter 
of the charter as far as conscience will permit, and can go no further. 
Yet the difficulty of literal adherence to the venerable document 
increases with every decade as religious conditions change. No 
other college charter in America apportions so explicidy a fixed num- 
ber of trustees among a limited number of churches, and thereby 
implicitly excludes all other churches. In 1 764 it was easy to ascer- 
tain and pronounce on the ecclesiastical principles and relations of 
every man in the community. In the present age it is often impossible 
to do this without inquisition and cross-examination. Frequendy 
men whose denominational eligibility is questioned are nominated 
for trustees. That eligibility cannot be determined without an investi- 
gation from which all of us shrink, and the results of which might 
lead different men to different conclusions. The question as to what 
constitutes membership in a given denomination has never been 
answered, and that question will inevitably grow more difficult as 
the years advance. Denominational barriers are falling, and denomi- 
national lines are not as sharp and clear as in the eighteenth century. 
If it be said that actual church membership should be required of every 
candidate for the board of trustees, we must remember that Nicholas 
Brown, for whom our university was named, was not a church mem- 
ber; John Carter Brown, one of our most distinguished trustees, never 
joined any church, and a number of our most useful and honored 



trustees have not been members of any church. Indeed, it may be 
questioned whether the Friends wish to be regarded as a church or 
denomination at all, or to formulate sharply-defined conditions of 
membership. But even under the most liberal construction of our 
charter, the provisions which exclude from our governing board the 
great majority of Christian men in America seem strangely at variance 
with the original design of the founders and the "liberal and catholic" 
spirit which they possessed. Indeed, they are explicitly at variance 
with the remonstrance of the trustees and fellows addressed to the 
General Assembly of the Colony of Rhode Island in May, 1770, 
wherein they declare that "In forming this charter care was taken 
that notwithstanding the burden of expense was to fall chiefly on the 
Baptists, yet no other Christian society should be excluded from the 
benefits of it, and accordingly a sufficient number from each of the 
principal of them were taken in to be trustees and fellows," etc. 
Again, our college addressed a letter to Benjamin Franklin to accom- 
pany a request to the King of France that he subscribe to the endow- 
ment of the institution. The last sentence of that letter reads as 
follows: "Its corporation, agreeably to charter, is and forever must be 
composed of some of all denominations of Christians." But the 
document, thus evidently intended to be most generous and catholic in 
its scope, has now become an instrument for excluding all denomi- 
nations save those prominent in New England in 1 764. 

2. Even if denominational qualifications could be determined to 
the satisfaction of all, it is unfortunate that sectarian differences should 
be thus constantly forced to the front in university affairs. When ciny 
man is mentioned as a possible trustee, the first question necessarily is 
not regarding his fitness for trusteeship, not conceming his knowledge 
or mental ability or power to render the university service, not even 
conceming his character, but conceming his denominational relations. 
This is both unfortimate for the university and unjust to the individual. 



3. The charter now by inference excludes all non-Protestants 
from the faculty. The faculty is open to "any and all denominations 
of Protestants." This phraseology may have been used with 
deliberate intention to exclude non-Protestants, or, as seems more 
likely, it may be that the founders failed to mention non-Protestants 
merely because there were so few of them in New England. In 
the latter case, the letter of the charter prohibits us from being true 
to its spirit. 

Of course it may be said that so long as non-Protestant institutions 
of leaming exclude Protestant teachers, they can make no objection 
if Protestant institutions exclude non-Protestants. But the non- 
Protestants have made no objection. It is we that naturally object 
to examination into a man's theological opinions before we appoint 
him a teacher, for example, of mathematics. If a man was bom into 
a non-Protestant church, but has ceased to attend it, is he eligible to 
our faculty? Is he a Protestant? If a teacher has general sympathy 
with the Protestant position, but has never allied himself with any 
Protestant congregation, is he eligible to our faculty? Such questions 
are constantly before us to-day. How definite must be one's formu- 
lation of religious belief in order to make him a Protestant in the 
meaning of the charter? It would be unfortunate that these and 
similar questions should be forced to the front in selecting teachers. 
It has been claimed by some alumni that we have no right, under the 
charter, to appoint members of our teaching staff until we have 
examined them, to ascertain if they are genuine Protestants in the 
meaning which was attached to that word in 1764. As a matter 
of fact, no examination has ever been made into the ecclesiastical 
relation of any teacher. Whether we are thus violating the letter of 
our charter may be a matter of debate. In abstaining from such 
examination we are certainly true to its spirit. 

4. The present charter excludes from the board of trustees a 
large and increasing section of the alumni. No matter how able and. 



influential an alumnus may be, no matter what devotion he may have 
shown or what sacrifice he may have made for the university, he is 
excluded forever from the governing body unless he belongs to one 
of the four denominations mentioned in the charter. 

Here many questions of casuistry are constantly arising. Is a mem- 
ber of the Christian body called Disciples eligible? Is a Baptist 
eligible who has been for many years a member of a Congregational 
church? Would George L. Littlefield of Pawtucket, the largest 
single benefactor in the history of the university, have been eligible 
as a trustee? He was immersed as a boy on confession of faith, and 
attended all his life a Baptist church, but did not become a member 
of that local church. Is a Friend eligible whose affiliation with the 
Friends is merely a matter of ancestry and tradition, and who himself 
never attends a Quaker meeting? Is a Unitarian eligible as a Con- 
gregationalist? The claim has been made that any member of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church should he held eligible on the ground 
that he is an Episcopalian. Would the election of a Methodist, on 
«uch a basis, be a palpable evasion of legal requirement, or simply 
an attempt to interpret the spirit at the expense of the letter? These 
are not imaginary problems; they are actual situations presented to us 
in the last ten years, and sure to recur constantly in the future. They 
plunge us into a kind of casuistry which was never anticipated by 
the founders, and which is unwholesome for their descendants. 

Even if these questions could be answered, the fact would remain 
that a large part of our graduates are prohibited from any share in 
the goverrunent of the university. While these men were under- 
graduates they were treated with equal justice, and all distinctions 
of creed were ignored. But the moment they become graduates, 
their creed becomes of greatest importance, and if they fail to belong 
to one of four denominations they are as stepsons to their Alma Mater. 
Thus the university is steadily creating a constituency which caimot 
sympathize with its position. It is training men in religious freedom 

8 



it is sending out men who are ardently attached to liberty, men coming 
from all denominations under heaven, men who cannot permanendy 
acquiesce in the restriction of their Alma Mater to a policy in the for- 
mulation of which large sections of the alumni body can have no share. 

5. Another reason for the change is that Brown University may 
be relieved from the misconstruction to which it is now unjusdy sub- 
jected. Every graduate is aware that there is not the slightest attempt 
at denominational propaganda within the walls of the university. 
The atmosphere is as free as that of any university in the land. Yet 
it is impossible to persuade the public of this fact so long as we have 
charter requirements more specific in denominational restrictions than 
can be found in the charter of any other American college. In no 
other New England college, so far as we know, is the President 
required to belong to a specified denomination. In no other 
New England college are certain denominations excluded, by 
charter, from the government. In no other New England college 
is a certain religious faith requisite for a position on the teaching staff. 
In no other is the entire body of trustees parcelled out among a certain 
number of denominations. Our exclusion from the benefits of the 
Camegie Foundation has called public attention to this fact in a most 
striking manner. Our university, therefore, does not clearly appear, 
as it should, in the class of institutions to which it properly belongs. 
As truly liberal and catholic as the leading colleges in the country, it 
is yet publicly refused a rating in their class, zmd is rated rather with 
institutions of inferior rank. While far more unsectarian than certain 
institutions accepted by the Camegie Foundation, it is yet excluded 
because the denominational relation of those institutions is a matter 
of present election, while Brown's relation is not left to choice, but is 
enforced by charter. 

We may frankly add that we desire for our professors the pensions 
which they would receive if serving in other institutions of the same 
rank. It has been said that the financial results of changing our 
charter should not be allowed to sway our judgment in the smallest 



degree, and that if we change our charter for the sake of financial 
gain we are descending to a species of barter which is unworthy of 
our position and our history. We are not careful to answer in this 
matter. We do not profess that we have no desire to better the con- 
ditions of our teaching staff. It is useless for any institution to pretend 
that in changing its charter, as we propose, it has no reference whatever 
to the standards of the Carnegie Foundation. On the contrary, we 
freely acknowledge that the desire to secure retiring allowances for 
our teaching staff is one of the objects we desire — though by no means 
the chief object. If we were as a corporation seeking pensions for 
ourselves, our motive would indeed be selfish or sordid. We want 
these pensions for the self-sacrificing men who are toiling, in many 
cases, on a meagre salary, and for their waves and children. If we 
were parting with any principle, or ignoring any obligation in order 
to secure such pensions, we should indeed be selling our birthright 
for a mess of pottage. But in simply asserting our birthright more 
clearly, and adhering more closely to the purpose and spirit of the 
founders of the university, we should be sacrificing no principle, and 
should be gaining much for the men who make the university. We 
should be merely throwing aside fetters that impede us, avoiding 
misconstructions that pain us, and making clear to the world the real 
temper and spirit of the university. 

It is only by making as generous provision for our faculty as other 
like institutions that we can expect to draw and hold the best men. 
The life and success of the university depends upon the men who 
constitute the teaching force. Their experience, ability and reputa- 
tion constitute the best asset of the university. Only by securing and 
retaining men of the highest scholarship and teaching power can we 
carry out the noble purposes of the founders and make Brown an insti- 
tution of first rank. If we cannot offer as ample rewards to teachers 
as other institutions, then we caimot compete successfully for teachers 
of highest ability, and we must lose our best men to institutions which 

10 



are free from denominational restrictions. The inevitable conse- 
quence must be that Brown will find it difficult, if not impossible, to 
hold the place it now holds among the colleges of the country. 

We do not, however, for a moment contemplate that the severing 
of the rigid requirements which now bind us to four denominations 
and exclude all others would mean cutting loose from organized 
Christianity. We would have the university ever increasingly per- 
meated by Christian forces and ideals. We are not content with 
mere professions of moral and religious aspiration. For us the true 
and sufficient religion is Christianity. In case the present charter is 
changed, we would suggest that the corporation adopt some clear 
declaration of its attitude toward the Christian faith held by all the 
founders, and its desire to cherish and promote that faith in all the 
life of the university. Furthermore, we would have the university 
ever cherish especially close and fraternal relations with the denomi- 
nation which was chiefly responsible for its founding. By that denomi- 
nation the seed was planted which has now become a mighty tree. 
Any failure to acknowledge our perpetual indebtedness to the heroic 
men who sacrificed and toiled for us in the day of small things would 
prove us lacking both in historic perspective and in moral sense. 
But the historic relation of Princeton to the Presbyterians is main- 
tained without charter requirement. The relation of Yale and 
Amherst and Williams and Dartmouth to the Congregationalist 
body is one of tradition and sympathy, not one of rigid legal control. 
The relation of Vassar College and the University of Rochester to 
the Baptists is one of fraternal co-operation, apart from any charter 
restrictions as to any officer or teacher. Such would we have the 
relation of Brown to the communion which founded it — a relation 
of respect and honor and sympathy, all the deeper, we believe, when 
it is a matter of choice and not of legal requirement. 

In the infancy of an institution, as in the infancy of a human being, 
it must be tied closely and by external bonds to its mother. It cannot 

11 



safely be allowed to assert any great degree of independence or trusted 
to guide itself. But as it grows, if it be worthy of its parents, it will 
develop a life of its own, will claim the right of self-control, self- 
guidance and self-defence. It then becomes the voluntary offering 
of its founders to the service of the Republic. The colleges of America 
which are under strict denominational control to-day are almost 
without exception the smaller and weaker colleges. They caimot 
yet be trusted to go alone. Their trustees are often elected by church 
assemblies, their faculty appointments supervised by ecclesiastical 
officials. But as these colleges expand in scope and influence, they 
can no longer be successfully conducted by churches or church repre- 
sentatives. They acquire an independent life. Grateful for past aid, 
cherishing the filial attitude, desiring close and perpetual co-operation 
with the churches, they must nevertheless be set free from denomi- 
national supervision, if they are to achieve true university standards 
and render university service. 

For these five reasons we believe that the removal of denomina- 
tional provisions from our charter is desirable : 

1. In order to preserve the spirit and fulfill the real purpose of 
the founders. 

2. In order to avoid the necessity of inquisition into the theo- 
logical position and ecclesiastical relation of every candidate for 
the board of trustees. 

3. In order to avoid all religious tests for members of the teaching 
staff. 

4. In order to render eligible to the board of trustees the large 
section of the alumni which is now excluded. 

5. In order to remove public misconstruction as to the truly "liberal 
and catholic" attitude of the university, and so secure for our 
faculty both the recognition to which they are entitled and the sup- 
port for themselves in their old age, and for their families, which such 
recognition involves. 

12 



With her charter thus Hberalized and freed from the erroneous 
impression that she is a sectarian institution, Brown will have a wider 
constituency and more loyal adherents. All denominations will then 
have a common interest in her welfare, and we may look for a wider 
sympathy and more generous support from the community which she 
serves. Brown is in full harmony with the progressive spirit of the 
twentieth century. With her charter freed from denominational restric- 
tions this fact will be more widely appreciated. The change wall give 
equal opportunity to all alumni to serve their Alma Mater. From 
this will flow a more devoted loyalty and a more generous service. 
With more liberal provision for the teaching staff the university will 
be a more attractive field for the highest scholarship and teaching 
ability. There will be less of worry and solicitude for the future and 
less necessity for expenditure of energy outside of university work. 
The knowledge that teachers at Brown are as well provided for as 
elsewhere will foster a spirit of contentment and create an atmosphere 
more conducive to delightful study and the highest efficiency. 

While your committee have reached the conclusion that a chemge 
in the charter is desirable, they are not as yet prepared to recommend 
that action be taken to this end by the corporation. The members 
of your committee have formed their opinions on the general question 
of the desirability of change only after careful study and discussion 
of the problem. Some aspects of the case, such as the exact nature 
of the change, the method of procedure and the legal questions involv- 
ed, require further consideration by the committee. Those upon whom 
the responsibility of making revision of our ancient charter must 
ultimately rest should also have opportunity for investigation and 
deliberate consideration of the problem before action is taken. 

The chcinge involves so many considerations of justice and courtesy, 
of moral euid legal obligation, of regard for our Baptist constituency 
and for the general public as to demand to an unusual degree deliber- 
ation in procedure and careful consultation of all the interests, educa- 

13 



tional and religious, which are immediately or remotely involved. 
It is the part of wisdom that action shall be taken only after full dis- 
cussion, and it is highly desirable that all interests work in harmony 
to the same end. Hasty cuid ill-considered action and disregard of 
the opinions and feelings of alumni and friends can only work disaster. 
The university was not founded yesterday cind cannot be revolutionized 
to-morrow. It has been built up by a hundred and forty-five years 
of toil and sacrifice. Change should be made carefully, after sympa- 
thetic conference with those who represent the founders and all other 
interests. Any change should be preceded by a full presentation of 
the subject to those who form our constituency, that they may see the 
facts as your committee see them, and feel the force of the considera- 
tions which have brought us to our unanimous conviction. 

For these reasons, and because we are not yet prepared to submit 
a plan of revision and procedure in detail, your committee present 
this preliminary report and request that the committee be continued 
with instruction to report at a later meeting. 



Respectfully submitted. 



EVERETT COLBY, 
ARNOLD B. CHACE, 
ROBERT H. I. GODDARD, 
CHARLES E. HUGHES, 
STEPHEN O. EDWARDS, 
WILLIAM H. P. FAUNCE, 
THOMAS S. BARBOUR, 
GEORGE E. HORR, 
HENRY KIRKE PORTER. 



Providence, June 1 7th 1 909. 



14 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

029 916 338 6 



J 



1 



REMINGTON PRINTING CO., PROVIDENCE 



C 1^0^) 



\ 




029 W 338 6 i 






Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



